We surveyed local governments across Queensland and received detailed responses from 26 councils. Find out who they were by clicking on the ‘Councils’ icon and what they said collectively by clicking on any of the thematic icons representing the various aspects of their experiences.
The following councils participated in the survey:
Although councils had not faced a pandemic before, many had relevant plans already existing that could be referenced. For many councils - and particularly those prone to natural disasters - this came in the form of disaster management plans, as well as business continuity plans.
'' Pandemic was a word in our disaster Management Plan that had no meaning except for the fact that it was there ,,
When trying to fit the existing plans to the circumstances, councils saw varying success. For some, they served as a reference point when creating new plans, while others found they needed to start over again to fit unique pandemic conditions.
Many new plans were created or updated during the pandemic experience to adjust to the unique circumstances, the most common of these being adjusted business continuity plans. Councils also developed specific pandemic management plans, and made amendments to leave policies and risk assesments to account for COVID in the workplace.
These plans were innacted a various stages throughout the pandemic, dependent on the circumstances of the time, as well as how severely the community was affected.
The plans were rated by councils to be much more fit for purpose than the previous plans, with 50% of responses saying they fit the circumstances "a great deal".
Despite this, 90% of councils reported making changes to these plans as the pandemic progressed, adapting to new circumstances. Reported reasons for this included;
To try to mitigate these impacts, councils had to introduce precautionary measures and make adjustments. Of these, budget adjustments and reviews were most common, alongside increased financial planning and consultation.
These new measures saw mixed success, with most councils only reporting moderate success in their implementation.
'' Like most councils we reduced the amount of expenditure on the nice to have items and focused mainly on the essentials. ,,
Over 90% of the councils surveyed applied a working from home regime during the pandemic.
This came with positives and negatives, including;
|
|
Councils put in place a range of measures to protect employees from contracting the virus and ensure workplace safety. Many, such as mask-wearing and social distancing, were direct recommendations from Queensland Health, who issued guidelines for public safety. Strong communication of these measures by employers was also frequently employed, making sure all staff were aware of their importance.
As the pandemic progressed, other measures such as rapid testing and vaccination could come into play, allowing for an extra level of safety on return to work.
These measures were generally considered to be very successful, being rated as such by
48% of councils. A further 38% rated them as having a lot of success in protecting their
employing from infection, while relatively few considered them only slightly effective.
None of the surveyed councils thought the measures had no effect.
Councils put in place many different measures to help manage the mental health and wellbeing of their
employees. Emphasised most among respondents was the importance of regular meetings and
check-ins to ensure the continued wellbeing of their staff as the pandemic wore on. Councils
also made use of their Employee Assistance Programmes, which staff could access for help when
needed.
Other measures included;
A number of different methods were employed to keep the public safe at council venues, largely in line with health directives. These methods were laregly considered to be very successful, with 66% of respondents giving them the highest success rating.
Many of the services provided by councils were affected by the pandemic, largely due to the restrictions enforced by the health directives. Services that relied on face-to-face contact were most affected, although this was somewhat countered if the service had the ability to go online.
Despite the limitations, responses were quite varied when rating degree of impact that the pandemic had on services, reflecting the differing experiences that councils had. 43% of councils said the pandemic only had "a little" impact on their service delivery, while 24% said it affected them "a great deal". Only one council reported having no impact.
In order to try mitigate the affects of the pandemic on council services, a number of measures were put in place, including;
The pandemic also had an affect on the enforcement and regulation functions of councils, although this effect was generally lesser. Affected functions included;
To support the community financially, councils put in place several financial relief initiatives. The most common of these involved freezes or extentions to rates, as well as additional funding for community grants.
The success of these initiatives was considered to be very high, with 40% of respondents saying they had "a great deal" of success. A further 30% claimed they had "a lot" of success, with the remaining claiming a "moderate amount" of success. None of the surveyed councils claimed these initiatives had little or no success.
Other, non-financial methods were also put in place by councils to support the community. These primarily came in the form of events (modified to run according to COVID health guidelines) that helped to boost the mental wellbeing of the community. Other initiatives included;
The COVID-19 pandemic hit businesses particularly hard, especially in a financial sense. To support their local businesses through this challenging time, councils put in place a number of measures, like waiving or reducing fees and encouraging local spending, helping to reduce the financial burden faced. These measures were seen to be quite successful, with nearly half of respondent councils saying they had "a lot" of success, and a similar percentage claiming "moderate" success.
Outside of the financial support, other methods were used to help in other ways. These included hosting events that allowed businesses to showcase their skills, and creating support networks so businesses could continue to help each other. The success of these measures was also quite high, with 55% of councils reporting a lot of success.
In addition to the financial and business support initiatives, some councils employed other methods to stimulate the broader economy. These included;
'' Council recognised the importance of its own local spend in the economy and sought to continue to maintain operational and capital spending in spite of the impacts of COVID on its own budget ,,
In keeping community members informed, councils took many different approaches. A popular method involved using social media channels, such as Facebook, to post information to their relevant audience. Council websites were used in a similar way, acting as an online hub for information.
For members of the community less technologically inclined, more traditional initiatives were employed. These included the use of existing community newsletters and radio channels, as well as personal outreach methods like door knocking and phone calls.
These initiatives were seen to have a largely positive effect, with the vast majority of councils considering them to have "a lot" of success.
To keep councillors and employees informed, many communication initiatives were put in place. The most popular of these were meetings and updates, with an emphasis placed on their regular nature. These, and other initiatives, were generally rated to be highly successful.
Engagement with Commonwealth and State goverments by councils was mixed, with different councils having differing levels and formats of interaction. Overall engagement was generally higher than pre-pandemic levels to account for the additional information that needed to be communicated. Trends included;
Councils typically rated the efficacy of their advocacy to be relatively high, with most saying it had "a lot" of effect.
The ability of councils to advocate effectively was potentially impacted by the limits of the information provided by governments, which were often relied on. When asked to rate the effectiveness of the government's information services, responses were mixed, with the majority falling in the "somewhat useful" category.
"...higher levels of government were constrained in sharing of information in timely manner due to leadership holding information ‘close-hold’ until public announcements were made"